The public cannot access this list. This register is concealed by bureaucratic barriers and unnecessary checks and balances to ensure that the names of paedophiles are hidden from public sight.

In Malta, only “relevant entities” can request partial access to the registry – these are organisations involved in the education, care, custody, welfare, or upbringing of minors. In fact, they’re legally obliged to do so when hiring someone new.

But the law puts up so many barriers that it’s extremely difficult for organisations to access the register.

For context, relevant entities need to file an application before the First Hall of the Civil Court through their lawyers to access this register.

The application must then be served to the Attorney General, who has seven days to respond. The court can then decide to schedule a hearing on the application, of which the AG is notified and may participate in as a legal safeguard.

After the hearing, a judge will then decide whether to grant the Court Registrar permission to check the list for the names submitted. Once an outcome is reached, it has to be shared with the applicant.

The applicant is then bound by Data Protection laws not to share information obtained from the Sex Offenders Register.

There’s a lot to criticise here.

First is the fact that this complicated process has rendered the list “ineffective” and even counterproductive.

Its use is to keep tabs on paedophiles and make sure their access to children is limited, but organisations needing this information need to pay legal fees and wait for a notoriously long court system to come to a conclusion.

Secondly, why shouldn’t the public have a right to know if their colleague, neighbour or even friend is a paedophile?

In Malta, the sexual abuse of a child is punishable by a maximum of eight years imprisonment. This could go up to 15 years if the crime involved aggravating factors, such as if the abuse was continuous, carried out by a family member, or if the child was younger than 12.

Meanwhile, the possession of indecent images of children can lead to jail time for anything ranging from two to nine years.

This means, that eventually, the majority of people on the sex offenders registry will be let out of prison and reintegrate back into society.

I fully acknowledge that having a completely public register opens risks chaos, violence and social outcasting – and at the end of the day, everyone deserves a chance at rehabilitation. But an overly censored registry can hide crucial information from those who need it most.

This is especially relevant when considering that magistrates can decide – on a case-by-case basis – not to share the identity of an adult convicted of a crime. This is done for various reasons like protecting the identity of the victim and deciding whether the crime warrants public scrutiny.

This in itself is controversial because the law only obliges the identities of convicted minors to be concealed. In fact, back in 2008, Daphne Caruana Galizia argued that a magistrate should justify the decision to hide the name of a convicted adult criminal.

Fast forward to this week when a 26-year-old man from Pembroke – a fresh Psychology graduate from the University of Malta – pleaded guilty to buying and publishing child sexual abuse material from the largest pornographic platform in the world, KidFlix.

This is the second Maltese person to be arraigned following a cross-border Europol crackdown nicknamed Operation Stream which was made public last weekend. Another man, aged 27, also admitted to the charges last week. They will both be handed their sentences in May. 

Operation Stream has been described as Europol’s largest operation in fighting child sexual exploitation, and so far, these two Maltese men pleaded guilty to not just buying child porn, but to uploading it too.

And yet, their identities are being protected by the courts.

In the case of the Pembroke resident, the prosecution argued that “society should be aware” of who the offender is but Magistrate Nadine Sant Lia said that his name being placed on the sex offender’s list should be punishment enough.

He was handed a suspended sentence and a treatment order, with both the prosecution and the defence agreeing that there was “still time to help him not to go off track”.

This is because he cooperated by providing all his passwords, admitted to the charges during interrogation and said he needed help to address his mental health problem – something that he could have sought before he bought and uploaded child pornography.

Let’s put this into perspective; this was a 26-year-old man who has been roaming around the University of Malta campus for the last three years and volunteering at an unknown NGO. In the meantime, he was buying and uploading footage of children being sexually abused from the world’s largest child porn site. He was investigated by Europol and arrested by authorities.

But, the Maltese courts decided that being added to the sex offender registry, which can only be accessed by “relevant entities”—who are, by law, prohibited from sharing any of the information they obtain – is sufficient.

Essentially, he poses a danger to society—but society will never know who he is, nor whether they or their children ever crossed paths with him, trusted him, or unknowingly welcomed him into their lives.

And after he serves his sentence, no one, except prospective employers – in the event that he’s stupid enough to try and work with children – will know what he did.

A balance between public safety and the right to privacy

There are multiple reasons why this list isn’t publicly accessible; authorities need to strike a balance between protecting public safety and ensuring human rights, especially after offenders have served their sentences. In fact, the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to privacy, even for those with criminal records.

Public naming can lead to harassment, stigma, job loss and violence, while studies have shown that making someone a social outcast increases their risk of reoffending.

There’s also the risk of vigilantism and social chaos which is seen in the US where the sex offenders registry can be accessed by anyone with the click of a button.

However, complete access isn’t the only alternative; there are middle grounds that open this information to people who really need to see it.

For instance, in the UK there is no general public access to the register, but the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme allows parents, carers, guardians and anyone concerned about someone’s behaviour towards a child to formally ask the police to tell them if a person has a record of child sexual offences.

The UK also has a similar scheme for perpetrators of domestic violence.

In Western Australia, parents and guardians can make enquiries with the police force about any person who has unsupervised contact with their child or children.

Poland has a two-tiered partial public registry: a confidential list for law enforcement and authorised entities, and a publicly accessible list of the most dangerous offenders, especially those who target children

Malta must consider a middle-ground solution—one that balances privacy with safety, and gives the public a mechanism to access vital information in cases of legitimate concern. Because the current system doesn’t just protect the offender—it leaves the rest of us in the dark.